The transfer of complexity

I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity. – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

I remember attending Mobile Money Monday sometime in November, 2010 for a session on Mobile Web Trends. At that time, I was still thinking about how the whole service delivery platform had changed from SMS to USSD and MMS to GPRS and mobile applications. However, In his talk about the Mobile Web, Shwetank Dixit from Opera made a very interesting comment about the mobile explosion in Kenya and its impact: It was based purely on existing technologies such as SMS and USSD. In fact, the entire mobile money service of m-Pesa is completely based on USSD. The thing is if services can be delivered efficiently on existing technology platforms, then why use more advanced platforms as what is happening in the mobile industry ?

One obvious reason is the UX. Basically, mobile OS’es such as Android, the Apple iOS and Symbian allow developers to build pretty GUIs and define how text and graphics should be displayed rather than just a string of text. But I think there is a more important reason than that. It’s about transferring complexity from the development stage to the deployment platform.

I know I know. Too many multi-syllable words in that previous sentence. So here goes. If you had to develop an application using a normal non-OS solution, you would basically have to learn how USSD text works, how the network would deliver it and basically how to build an USSD-based product which does not typically work on C++ or Java or some other well-known OOP language. Secondly, design-wise you would barely get any flexibility. SMS limits you to 140 characters. Too many messages and it jams up the inbox (without any way to delete old messages automatically). Only text. The business model requires extensive network tie-up, etc. Basically, at the developer end you get badly killed. So it’s simple. Build it on an Android or/and an iOS platform and deploy.

However, what happens is that the complexity of building the app is not killed. It is transferred. It is transferred to the customer who has to  replace his existing barely-feature-rich handset to a fully loaded Apple iPhone to enjoy the product. It probably requires a GPS-enabled handset to locate a joint. It requires MMS capabilities to send across the required data. This is all fine in the USA but in countries like India and African countries, people first demand proof-of-concept before any adoption takes place. That’s why handsets with radio facilities exploded in Mumbai. The concept of radio and its entertainment value was already tested and proven. Apps and GPRS-based services, however are an entirely different story.  So was interactive TV which failed because people refused to adopt it without any proof of concept. So we end up missing a whole section of people who hold back from moving up the value chain because they don’t perceive value in moving.

I’m not writing this post from a developer’s point of view to increase adoptibility. I’m viewing it from the customer’s point of view. My biggest frustration is that a lot of people don’t have access to critical services and information because the complexity of the operation is transferred to them. It’s not that it cannot be done on a simple technology. It’s just that it requires a lot more (a LOT LOT more) effort from the development team along with certain UX and feature compromises to deploy the basic information on a plain-vanilla platform. And this kills adoption by people who could really use and benefit from the service: whether it is the rural poor unable to access financial services because they don’t have proof of identity (designing a process that requires documentation to open accounts is easy; deploying a product like UIUD across the country from scratch for people with absolutely no documentation of existence is difficult. (In the first scenario, the complexity is transferred to the customer – the responsibility to run from pillar to post to get the required documentaiton, in the second, it is transferred to the provider which simplifies the subsequent processes for the poor) or the humongous number of brands and sub-brands we face every time we go to make a purchase (tweaking a few options and launching them as multiple sub-brands is easy which transfers the complexity of making the choice to the customer).

The second example reminds me of Apple. When Steve Jobs (hesitatingly) accepted the role of interim CEO, his first action was to do a in-depth review of all of Apple’s products . There were around 50 of them.  Basically, customers had to choose among 50 of Apple’s products alone, forget about what HP, Compaq and Dell were launching. The complexity of choosing products to launch was transferred to the customer as products to choose from. As Steve himself said during WWDC 1998,

What I found when I got here was a zillion and one products. [...] It was amazing. And I started to ask people, why would I recommend a 3400 over a 4400? Or when should somebody jump up to a 6500, but not a 7300? And after three weeks, I couldn’t figure this out! And I figured if I can’t figure it out working inside Apple with all these experts telling me into it, how are our customers going to figure this out?

Steve decided to simplify. Legend says (and so does Icon )  that he went up to a white board and drew  a 2 X 2 matrix. The rows were “Types of computers” i.e. Desktop or notebook and the columns were “Types of users” i.e. Professional andConsumer (as per the picture below). That’s it. 4 products. Simple. And with that, he conquered the world.

Credit: Allaboutstevejobs.com

I think the basic point of what I’m trying to say is this: It’s that not all complexity can be killed. Those are few and very obvious instances where it can actually be removed from the process and the product. The problem is the complexities which get transferred. It’s when we can’t deploy services on simple platforms that middlemen arise. It’s the problem of standing in line for railway tickets that travel agents for trains arose. Online booking have reduced that complexity somewhat, but not without setting up its own complexities of requiring internet access and owning credit cards and bank accounts. It’s when there was a difficulty in getting a driver’s license (demanding repeat visits to the RTO) because the list of documents required was not updated that agencies who help you obtain driving licenses arose. It’s the complexity of choosing across multiple (and only slightly different) products that personal shoppers arose.  Unscrupulous moneylenders make unheard of profits because of the complexity of opening a bank account or getting crop insurance.These intermediaries take on the complexity and put in the effort required to resolve that complexity. To be fair, some of these middlemen obviously also provide a lot of other services to help the customer through fair and legitimate results but their jobs exist because of this complexity. Complexity which should not have been handed over to the consumer in the first place.

Telecom products and VAS are still at their infancy. In my opinion, this is the first infrastructure sector that is actually a carrier of knowledge rather than crude oil or power. It is, in fact, as I optimistically believe, the answer to the wide-spread problems of rural illiteracy, ignorance, lack of participation on vital issues and influence of propoganda . However, if these products / information are halted at the gates of customer complexities, it’s akin to the bureaucracy which refuses to let life-saving medicines into the city through octroi because the papers are not in adequate order. In fact, I have to re-iterate that. Customer complexity is like a bureaucratic government corporation – a bureaucracy that prevents information from reaching its rightful owner. The owner shouldn’t have to run from pillar to post sorting out the mess. It should be the producer who takes on the responsibility to deliver the information to the consumer’s footstep no matter where he is. It’s easy to demand that the customer accept some of the complexities to better their own lives. It’s a fallacy to expect it. It’s only when the consumer adequately believes in the proof-of-concept in his existing state of being, that he is ready to be hand-held into the more advanced nuances of your service/ product.

Bonus link: When strength becomes weakness. Dave Trott may be an advertiser but I swear, each one of his posts is worth printing and pinning to the wall !

Bonus talk: One of my favorites Barry Schwartz on the paradox of choice (based on the example of too many brands to choose from)

Update: Found another couple of videos on the topic from TED which I forgot to add
Sheena Iyengar on the art of choosing:

A slightly different one on choice which actually supports choice up to a point: Malcolm Gladwell on spaghetti sauce

Google re-directs pages from its search results to the original page

I really don’t know what to make of this. Maybe it really isn’t anything. But usually, let’s say you search on Google for a Wiki article. Like in  my previous post, I searched for a story to link to for the Tunisia protests. Typically, once the results come in, you click on it to go to the article. And you would expect the link to point to that page. For example, it was supposed to link to:

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/02/tunisia_s_protest_wave_where_it_comes_from_and_what_it_means_for_ben_ali

However, when I copy-paste that url in my WordPress URL field, it shows as:

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmideast.foreignpolicy.com%2Fposts%2F2011%2F01%2F02%2Ftunisia_s_protest_wave_where_it_comes_from_and_what_it_means_for_ben_ali&rct=j&q=tunisia%27s%20protest%20wave&ei=hXlCTd-eKM7MrQfKtbRV&usg=AFQjCNGu72wt66NgjVyI6OL1rZgwgrsnOg&cad=rja

So, why does it do that? Is there any impact on the way Foreign Policy.com tracks its MiddleEast traffic sources? Or any other KPIs in terms of page views for Google ? Revenue maybe? Or is it just a curiosity ?

Update: Ok, so I just realized just after hitting the “Publish” button that the second URL is a link to Google’s cached version. So that makes sense. But does it impact FP’s page views ? And ad inventory? If the page is being pulled from Google’s cache server rather than their web server? I’m not sure about this.

HDD transfers !

I don’t get it. Why do I need a frickin’ laptop to transfer files between two different external hard drives. Why can’t someone just invent a hard disk with one male port, one female port and an LCD for an interface to choose files to transfer ? That way, I can just connect one hard disk to another and transfer files without having to switch on my laptop (or even carry it around for this purpose) for transferring files between disks. Why hasn’t someone figured this out yet ? Additional props for building an anti-virus into it.

Cloud vs. Handsets/ Carriers….the debate continues

Cloud Computing. Credit: News and Reviews

While I’ve talked about apps distributed through handset vs. apps through carriers, never really got into cloud vs. proprietary. Basically, it means that should there even be a more distributor channel for apps which means downloading applications only available through one handset provider or only through one carrier. For the uninitiated, simply put, cloud computing is where the handset sits as an input-output/ communication device while the processing parts are managed by a central server. This would be equivalent to saying that you want to add the numbers 2 and 3. You type “2″, then “3″ and then “Add”. If it’s a cloud infrastructure, all these inputs are sent to a central server (Somewhere in what is called the “cloud”. It doesn’t matter where or what type of server it is. What matters is that it can be accessed and it can perform the required function) through a connection established between the handset and the server. The server looks at the “2″, “3″ and the “add” and then performs a summing operation and returns on the same connection a “5″. The handset receives this and displays it to you. If you think, this is riduculous, you’re right. But only for this level of computation. However, if you wanted to perform some statistical analysis on your handset like a mean, or a variance analysis which your handset can’t support, then this architecture comes to your aid. Leave Math. What about hard core gaming which requires an operating system to talk to? This can’t be done on a plain vanilla handset. But if the only function of the handset required was to receive you input to “jump” or “shoot” on the input side and redraw the pixels on the output side, this can lead to a credible albeit slightly shaky experience.

Where I’m coming from is that migrating to a cloud-type of architecture basically allows you to be carrier and handset agnostic. The only thing that matters is the mode of communication between the handset and the cloud. In my opinion, this is the only significant strategy of adoption of services in India. With handsets like the Nokia 1100 as one of the faster selling phones, applications for the rural market cannot depend on any functionality on the phone itself except for voice and SMS.

The Indian market has already given a thumbs-down to the iPhone frankly, the reason being value for money. Even some of the people I thought to be relatively hip have no reason to have one. And those who do have one invariably have a hacked-out one which basically negates the whole exclusivity thing with Voda and Airtel.

Developer’s point of view:

In the urban areas, the handset market is littered with Nokia, Sony, Motorola and HTC as well. And while, Nokia is the dominant market leader, it doesn’t dominate it enough to ignore all the other manufacturers while developing apps.
From the brilliant App is Crap post by Mark Suster:

- Let’s start with Google’s Android. You’ve just hired your iPhone development team for you app. They’re super busy developing a new version of your product because, guess what, Apple changed it’s terms of service to allow in-app purchasing. So you rush to develop a new monetization strategy which means rebuilding your app. It’s taking time to finish the product because you’re super expensive iPhone developers (they’re in high demand) are not as good as you like (they’re super high in demand). Should you now hire Android developers? Can your iPhone developers be good at both? Do you have enough resource to cover both?
- And that Palm Pre. I heard it’s pretty slick and Sprint seems to be pushing it really hard. I heard they have an App Store. Let’s look into it. Maybe we could ship our app and see how it does?
- Oh, wait. There’s that RIM company with the Blackberry. Should we have an app for that? They have a super relevant and high-end installed base including people like Mark Suster who never gave up his Blackberry since Apple only offers itself on a super sucky network for which their is ZERO bars of coverage at his house in Brentwood. But their browser sucks, their app environment sucks, the developer community isn’t strong. But we need device coverage, right?
- Oh, wait. I need some Microsoft OS coverage. I know Windows CE is dead despite having like a 100-year head start on Google. But Windows is now making a push with Windows 7 Mobile. Maybe we could get an application out early for that before everybody else does?
- And how about Symbian? We’re going to want to develop for all those Europeans, right? And Nokia has the Ovi Store thing, right?

And this is only the developer’s headaches. How do you manage a team making the same product? You can’t re-use classes, you can’t re-use objects and hell, you’re rebuilding the same product from ground-up. I used to fantasize about some kind of universal compiler where you right the code once for one platform and then this universal compiler would actually re-compile this code for all other platforms. But wait a minute? Isn’t that exactly what a cloud architecture does? Keeping the processing of the data, the classes, objects, methods, databases and all that jargon away from the handset? Making it a kind of a black box for the handset so that the OS on the handset (Hell, even the absence of an OS) does not affect the functionality of the application)

Customer’s point of view:
Forget compiling code, using a basic SMS delivery platform a basic handset like a Nokia 1100 could access some pretty advanced functionality since the entire the thing would be processed in the “cloud” of powerful servers. It would be in some sense a “black box” for the handset and hence, the application was handset-independent.

Second is the freedom of choice. Jason has put it so succinctly put it in his post The Case Against Apple–in Five Parts:

Apple will face a user revolt in the coming years based upon Microsoft, Google and other yet-to-be-formed companies, undercutting their core markets with cheap, stable and open devices. Apple’s legendary comeback ability will be for naught if they don’t deeply examine their anti-competitive nature.

Making great products does not absolve you from technology’s cardinal rule: Don’t be evil.

It also doesn’t save you from Scarface’s cardinal rule: Never get high on your own supply.

Interesting times. While VAS in India has been dominated by ring-back tones and Missed call alert services, the VAS market has not seen the real relevant services being pushed. The real useful ones haven’t yet reached critical mass partially in terms of usability issues and partly in terms of the revenue model. Now, that voice and SMS are really going the commodity way, and data hasn’t picked up fast enough to replace the voice and SMS revenues, now there should a push towards maturing this service/ business model.

Let’s play !

Bloom Energy presents the Bloom Box Fuel Cell

I’m loving it…….finally, a good slogan for a more meaningful product

Product: Generation of power for large buildings, server farms with the least amount of green house gas emission.

Funda:

Product is based on two fundaes:

1. Distributed generation i.e. comsumption is synchronous with production (kinda like a captive power plant) hence you don’t worry about transmission and distribution losses and..

2. the solid state fuel electrolyte except that the electrodes aren’t made of  the usual precious metals or corrosive acids

Clients: eBay, Google, Staples, and FedEx

Architecture:

From FC:

The Bloom Energy Server is made out of fuel cells, or electrochemical cells. A single fuel cell consists of an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte stuck between the two. As fuel flows in through the anode side and an oxidant comes in over the cathode, a reaction is triggered that causes electrons to move into the fuel cell’s circuit, producing electricity.

The Bloom Energy Server isn’t actually a server–that’s just a PR buzzword. In actuality, it’s a distributed power generator. Each “server” produces 100 kW of power, consists of thousands of fuel cells, costs between $700,000 and $800,000, and pays for itself in three to 5 years based on an energy cost of 8 to 9 cents per kW hour.

There are many different types of fuel cells. Some of the more popular ones include methanol fuel cells, hydrogen fuel cells, and zinc-air batteries. The Bloom Energy Server consists of solid oxide fuel cells, which are attractive because they can be made out of low-cost materials with high energy efficiencies.

The cells can run on a variety of fuels, including traditional fuel, natural gas, biomass gas, landfill gas, and ethanol.

Diagram from FC:

There’s nothing more to say except:

60 minutes feature:

Animation from the company itself here

Write up from FC here

I am beginning to get some serious respect for John Doerr and KPCB. These buggers seem to gain some cred on being at the forefront of every new technology sphere whether it was Google on the Internet search front, Amazon on the online retailing front and now these guys on the green energy front

Panasonic not going to discontinue the Technics !

Phew ! I always wanted to buy one of the 1200′s . Thank God! I was going mad trying to figure out how to “con”vince my friends into buying one for me despite another 4 months for my birthday (not mentioning that these babies are frickin expensive). I don’t claim to be a professional DJ or anything but man, it’s an amazing feeling to control the pace of the music with your hands, I mean, just the feeling of the vinyl acts like a conduit for the music to pass through you. One hour on these Technics and I understood what it meant to “have the music flowing through you”. Really !

As a major global business, Panasonic keeps all of its operations under constant review. However, there are no current plans to discontinue the Technics brand and the production of Technics turntables

Here

Would you like fries with that? Vinyl Records and Turntables Make a Comeback

TEDTalks: Pranav Mistry: The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology

Forget the tablets, forget the e-readers, just check this TEDTalk. Pranav Mistry really really changes the definition of integration between the real and virtual life with his incredible Sixth Sense product. And it all started with the analysis of the rollers that keep the ball in our normal computer mouse rolling. Mind-blowing !!

Square – Marrying mobile payments to physical credit cards

Credit: Gigaom

Interesting  interview by Om Malik with Square co-founder Jack Dorsey (also co-founder of Twitter). Square is an interesting bridge between the credit card systems used today and the mobile payment systems of tomorrow touted by Obopay, Paymate, etc. It’s a general understanding that people are still uncomfortable with the whole mobile payment systems both on the security as well as the spread (Number of vendors who actually use that specific mobile payment vendor that the customer does). Square allows any handset with a standard handset jack to process credit card payments using a physical credit card ! Which is interesting since this can be used on any standard handset to access services wherever Visa or Mastercard is accepted. The security part is taken care since the magnetic card reader in the Square device does not store the credit card number).

Another interesting article by Kit Eaton from Fast Company talks about one potential downfall and that is in Europe. To quote:

European banking and credit card systems are very rapidly switching away from magnetic strip technology towards the smarter, more secure in-card chip tech.

Further:

It’s such a vastly superior system that there are even mumblings that the E.U. may ban magnetic bank cards pretty soon. This will pose a significant problem for Square, which relies on the low cost of its hardware components and fancy in-smartphone processing to work. For Square to disrupt the European electronic banking system, it will need a newer, more expensive piece of hardware that can interface and decode the in-card chips directly–this will complicate its business model pretty severely.

While these are easily surmountable problems, it’s increasingly clear that the markets for VAS is going to be a very interesting conundrum: Service delivery depends on handset features. Handset features depend on handset manufacturers. The profitability of handset manufacturers is based on number of people purchasing the handset. Number of people purchasing the handset depends on the number of ways that the customer can use it. The number of ways the mobile is useful depends on the availability of applications available for the handset which again depends on service delivery. Someone missing? Yep, telecom service providers with their undifferentiated services are going to get the revenue for their undifferentiated service. It kinda scares me that most of our clients are the telecom service providers or the equipment manufacturers (manufacturers of the network equipment such as BTS, antennas, etc.)

IBM Smarter Planet – The Green Data Centre

Been sick as a dog for the last two days – fever hitting 102 on one occassion and this is the first time I’ve set my eyes on a screen: laptop, TV, whatever.

Anyways, I am a big fan of IBM’s smarter planet concept and now that they are using their huge talent pool to make a greener data centre is pretty damn interesting. Why ? Because data centers are huge power guzzlers (as per the video almost 10 times the usual office premises). I also love this new experiment for its focus on off-grid power generation. Off-grid generally means using some kind of captive power to supply power to your operations. In India, it is relatively common among the heavy-industry, heavy-machinery sectors but primarily because the state-owned power supply system has an infamous reputation of erratic power supply. However, another side benefit is that there are no transmission losses, requirements to step-up or step-down voltages (for distribution on cables, AC power has to be stepped up or amplifed only for optimal transmission. Once it reaches the sub-station, it once again has to be stepped down to normal operating levels i.e. 230v) and hence, this increases the efficiency of the power generation process. This is one of the benefits that IBM is hoping to capitalize. Another interesting feature is the concept of tri-generation i.e. using the power generated to power the Syracuse University, using the heat generated (enormous amounts of heat are generated during power generation since the turbines run at incredible temperatures and this is a critical source of global warming) to warm the schools and even converting this heat energy to run chillers (through absorption chillers) for cooling the buildings during summer. Another interesting using a water cooling system (unlike the traditional air-cooling systems which which are less expensive but also less effecient) like a car radiator except that here the chillers would provide water for that as well.

Obviously, the pink elephant in the room is the huge amounts of capex required to set up a data centre like this. And while the post talks about returning power back to the grid (power generated for the data centre not utilized so sent back to the main power grid to augment the power generated by the public utility or electric company), the owners of such data centres would optimize their power generation to feed their systems alone. Simply, because selling power back to the power grid would not be worth either the revenue against the investment (unless the company has massive plans to scale the data centre in which case returning power would be a temporary measure till the data centre scales up completely) or the effort/attention required to setup and  monitor the same.

Further, another fundoo thing is that Syracuse University has rigged the whole setup with an array of sensors and monitors to track every aspect of the working of this data centre. Hence, it also acts as an R&D centre for them to really really make this even more efficient. I really hope they share their findings with the general public. I’m sure it would be quite a revelation. And maybe IBM could share data on the investment required by companies for such projects.

Read More: New Data Center Goes Off-Grid to be Green

Zero gravity experiments

The geek in me loves this! What can you do with a sphere of water as big as your head floating in zero gravity ?